Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV08027, Date: 2022-09-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV08027    Hearing Date: September 22, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

NOTE:  TWO TENTATIVE RULINGS BELOW

TENTATIVE RULING - NO. 1

MOTION

            Defendant Katy Ryan Callas moves to compel responses from plaintiff Peggy Frazier Hartman to Special Interrogatories, set one (“SROG”).  Defendant requests monetary sanctions.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion.

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response . . . [t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010.  . . .   [and] The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (a)-(b).)  

            Here, Defendant served the SROG on Plaintiff on March 28, 2022, electronically.  Plaintiff’s response was thus due by April 29, 2022.  As of the filing date of the motion, Defendant has not received a response from Plaintiff.  Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to serve a timely response to the SROG.

Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  The Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the subject discovery request to be an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d), 2030.290, subd. (c).)  Thus, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $560, which represents two hours of attorney time to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $250 per hour, plus the filing fee of $60.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to compel responses to the SROG, per Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, and orders Plaintiff to serve verified responses to the SROG, without objections, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $560 to Defendant, by and through counsel for Defendant, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING - NO. 2

MOTION

Plaintiff Peggy Frazier Hartman sued defendant Kary Ryan Callas based on a motor vehicle collision.  Defendant moves to continue trial, which is currently set for November 1, 2022, for 180 days, with all pre-trial motion and discovery cutoffs to be based on the new trial date.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion.   

ANALYSIS

 “Continuances are granted only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring a continuance.”  (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.)  A trial court has broad discretion in considering a request for a trial continuance.  (Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 11, 13-18.)  California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 sets forth factors for the Court to consider in ruling on a motion to continue trial.  Whether the parties have stipulated to the postponement is a relevant factor for consideration.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 595.2, but see Lorraine v. McComb (1934) 220 Cal. 753, 756-757 [finding a stipulation to be merely “directory”].)  

Here, Defendant seeks a continuance to permit the parties time to complete necessary discovery.  According to counsel for Defendant, Sharon Pak (“Pak”), as of the filing date of the motion, Plaintiff has not provided responses to Defendant’s written discovery requests, necessitating the filing of motions to compel responses from Plaintiff.  (Declaration of Sharon Pak, ¶ b-d.)  Pak states that the hearings on Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff’s discovery responses, filed June 13, 2022, are presently set for September 21 and 22, 2022.  (Declaration of Sharon Pak, ¶ d.)  Finally, Pak estimates Defendant will require approximately 180 days to obtain Plaintiff’s discovery responses, subpoena relevant records, and conduct depositions and additional discovery as necessary in preparation for trial.  (Declaration of Sharon Pak, ¶ e.) 

The Court finds Defendant has shown good cause for a trial continuance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to continue trial and orders as follows:

• The trial date, currently set for November 1, 2022, is continued to May 8, 2023 at 8:30 AM in Department 32.

   

• The Final Status Conference, currently set for October 18, 2022, is continued to April 24, 2023 at 10:00 AM in Department 32.

   

• All discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates shall be based upon the new trial date of May 8, 2023.

• Per the Discovery Act, the parties shall meet and confer forthwith to schedule and complete all non-expert discovery and to prepare for the completion of expert discovery to obviate the need for a further continuance of the trial. 

   

• No further continuance of the trial absent sufficient good cause. 

   

  Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.